Mumbai Court November 1945 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ningappa Awwappa Vs. Danappa Sharnappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR800
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for partition and possession of a moiety of Survey Nos. 138 and 139 of Bagalur in Bijapur District. The two lands belonged to two brothers Nagappa and Rayappa and at the public auction held in execution of a money decree obtained against Nagappa by one Mallappa in suit No. 383 of 1919, Nagappajs half share in the lands was purchased by the plaintiff on September 23, 1935. When Mallappa's suit was pending, Nagappa and Rayappa sold both the lands to their brother-in-law, defendant No. 3, on October 16, 1920. At that time one Saibanna was in actual possession of the two lands. It appears from the Record of Eights that on July 17, 1919, Nagappa and Rayappa borrowed Us. 350 on the mortgage of Survey No. 138 and Rs. 250 on the mortgage of Survey No. 139 and gave possession of both the lands to Saibanna on condition that he should enjoy the income of Survey No. 138 for seven years and that of Survey No. 139 for ni...
Globe theatres Ltd. Vs. Judge of Small Cause Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom108
ORDERKania, J.1. The petitioners are a private limited company and carry on the business of exhibiting cinema films in the property known as Regal Cinema in Fort, Bombay. They are also the owners of the property. As such, under the City of Bombay Municipal Act they have to pay, amongst other things, property taxes, on the rateable value fixed by the Municipality from time to time. Up to the official year 1942-43 the rateable value was fixed at Rs. 30,550. For the year 1943-44 the Municipality raised the rateable value to Rs. 50,470. This was arrived at on the footing of the estimated gross takings having regard to the sitting capacity of the theatre. Several other cinemas were similarly assessed. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Municipality appealed to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court under Section 217, City of Bombay Municipal Act. Other cinema owners, who were the proprietors of the buildings in which their cinemas were run, also filed simil...
Ningappa Awwappa Vs. Danappa Sharnappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom206
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for partition and possession of a moiety of survey Nos. 138 and 139 of Bagalur in Bijapur District. The two lands belonged to two brothers Nagappa and Rayappa and at the public auction held in execution of a money decree obtained against Nagappa by one Mallappa in Suit No. 383 of 1919, Nagappa's half share in the lands was purchased by the plaintiff on 23rd September 1935. When Mallappa's suit was pending, Nagappa and Rayappa sold both the lands to their brother-in-law, defendant 3, on 16th October 1920. At that time one Saibanna was in actual possession of the two lands. It appears from the Record of Rights that on 17th July 1919, Nagappa and Rayappa borrowed Rs. 350 on the mortgage of Survey NO. 138 and Rs. 250 on the mortgage of survey No. 139 and gave possession of both the lands to Saibanna on condition that he should enjoy the income of survey No. 138 for seven years and that of survey No. 139 for nin...
Satyavart Sidhantalankar Vs. the Arya Samaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom516; (1946)48BOMLR341
Bhagwati, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit, being members of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the said society, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, against the first defendant who is the president of the said society, as representing the society of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, and against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the members of the managing committee of the society on behalf of themselves and all the other members of the managing committee of the society, for a declaration that the resolutions dated October 8, 1944, passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the society are ultra vires and in fraud of the minority, for a declaration that the resolution dated January 21, 1945, passed at the general meeting of the said society is also null and void and for further and other reliefs. The resolutions dated October 8, 1944, enacted certain changes in the constitution of the said society and t...
Shantilal Chunilal Vs. Versatile Traders Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom477; (1946)48BOMLR308
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated January 25, 1945.2. The matter arises out of two contracts for the sale of yarn dated respectively April 22 and 24, 1943. In the trial Court a number of points were taken, but these have dropped out or have been given up, leaving two main issues which we have to consider. The issue which comes first is with regard to the validity of the contract. On that issue the appellant in this Court succeeded in the Court below. The other issue concerns the quantum of damages for the breach of contract, and on that issue the respondents succeeded and the appellant filed this appeal. Thereupon the respondents cross-appealed on the issue of validity. The cross-appeal has been argued first in this Court, since, if it succeeds, the appeal with regard to the quantum of damages would not arise.3. Mr. Tendolkar for the respondents on the cross-appeal submits that the transactions by the appellant (the vendor) were i...
The Paper Sales Ltd. Vs. Chokhani Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom429; (1946)48BOMLR274
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from two judgments of Mr.. Justice Chagla dated March 15, 1944, and November 10, 1944, by which he ordered the appellants to pay to the respondents Rs. 2,77,000 as damages for breach of contract.2. The fact that there was a contract whereby the appellants agreed to sell to the respondents one hundred tons of special featherweight bond paper, more particularly described in exhibit E, which is a letter dated July 10/15, 1942, is not now in dispute. Nor is it disputed that the appellants are in breach of that contract. The controversy is directed to the date of the breach and to the quantum of damages, if any. Mr. Colt-man for the appellants admits with considerable force and logic that in order to determine that controversy it is essential to start at the beginning and to ascertain the terms of the contract. Unfortunately the position in this regard has become confused by the course which the proceedings have taken which necessitated an amendm...
Virbhadrappa Rachappa Vs. Babu Virbhadrappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR420
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for a partition and possession of their half share in two lands, Survey Nos. 107 and 278, in the village of Ankalgi in Belgaum Taluka. Their grandfather Virbhadrappa had two brothers, Ramlingappa and Sidramappa. Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 represent Ramlingappa's branch. Sidramappa died leaving a son Virupaxappa. On Virupaxappa's death his widow Shivatayavva claimed that Virupaxappa and his father were separated from the branches of Ramlingappa and Virabhadrappa and filed a suit ((No. 312 of 1919) in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum for her third share in certain lands situated at Jankatti and Gurlgunji, As she was then in possession of the two lands of Ankalgi, which are now in suit, they were not included in that partition suit. It was held in that suit that her husband Virupaxappa and his father Sid-ramappa had died in union and that on their death the branches of Ramlingappa and Virbhadrapp...
Virbhadrappa Rachappa and ors. Vs. Babu Virbhadrappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom1
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for a partition and possession of their half share in two lands, Survey Nos. 107 and 278, in the village of Ankalgi in Belgaum Taluka. Their grandfather Virbhadrappa had two brothers, Ramlingappa and Sidramappa. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 represent Ramlingappa's branch. Sidramappa died leaving a son Virupaxappa. On Virupaxappa's death his widow Shivatayavva claimed that Virupaxappa and his father were separated from the branches of Ramlingappa and Virbhadrappa and filed a suit (No. 312 of 1919) in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum for her third share in certain lands situated at Jankatti and Gurlgunji. As she was then in possession of the two lands of Ankalgi, which are now in suit, they were not included in that partition suit. It was held in that suit that her husband Virupaxappa and his father Sidramappa had died in union and that on their death the branches of Ramlingappa and Virbhadrappa succee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›